Sanchez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

SANDRA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

No. 18-CV-2027 (KMK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 25, 2019

OPINION & ORDER

Appearances:

Sandra Sanchez

Bronx, NY

Pro Se Plaintiff

Allison Rovner, Esq.

United States Attorney's Office, SDNY

New York, NY

Counsel for Defendant

KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:

Sandra Sanchez ("Plaintiff") brings this Action against the Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant" or the "Commissioner"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the decision of an administrative law judge (the "ALJ") to deny Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits on the ground that Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act ("SSA"), 42 U.S.C. § 423 et seq. The Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy ("Judge McCarthy"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Dkt. No. 7.) The Commissioner filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the "Motion"). (Comm'r's Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 14).) Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation (the "R&R"), recommending that the Court deny the Commissioner's Motion and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with her recommendation. (R&R 1 (Dkt. No. 21).) The Commissioner filed objections to the R&R on May 7, 2019. (Comm'r's Obj. to R&R ("Comm'r's Obj.") (Dkt. No. 22).)

For the reasons discussed below, Judge McCarthy's R&R is adopted in part.

I. Background

Aside from some minor clarifications, the Court adopts the recitation of facts as set forth by Judge McCarthy. (R&R 2-17.) The Court assumes the Parties' familiarity with the facts and repeats only those facts relevant to consideration of the objections to the R&R raised by the Commissioner.

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

1. Review of Report and Recommendation

A district court reviewing an R&R addressing a dispositive motion "may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties may submit objections to the R&R. The objections raised must be "specific" and "written," and must be filed "[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

When a party submits timely objections to an R&R, the district court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which the party objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district court "may adopt those portions of the . . . [R&R] to which no 'specific objection' is made, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings and conclusions set forth in those sections are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Eisenberg v. New Eng. Motor Freight, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.72(b)(2)); Garcia v. Lee, No. 11-CV-1803, 2018 WL 2268129, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018) (same). Objections raised "that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review of the [R&R]." Vega v. Artuz, No. 97-CV-3775, 2002 WL 31174466, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002) (citations omitted). Such arguments are considered "frivolous, general, and conclusory." Id. (citations omitted).

2. Review of a Social Security Claim

In reviewing an ALJ's determination on a Social Security claim, it is not the function of a reviewing court to "determine de novo whether [the claimant] is disabled." Cage v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 692 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation, alteration, and quotation marks omitted); Hernandez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-5891, 2018 WL 6649620, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2018) (same) (citation, alteration, and quotation marks omitted). Rather, the Court is "limited to determining whether the [ALJ's] conclusions were supported by substantial evidence in the record and were based on a correct legal standard." Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2012)). A court may overturn an ALJ's determination only where it is "based upon legal error [or] not supported by substantial evidence." Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). "Substantial evidence" is "more than a mere scintilla," and "means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Lamay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 562 F.3d 503, 507 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). In considering whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination, the reviewing court must "examine the entire record, including contradictory evidence and evidence from which conflicting inferences can be drawn." Talavera, 697 F.3d at 151 (citation and quotation marksomitted). Where the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, those findings "shall be conclusive." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Accordingly, "once an ALJ finds facts," the court may "reject those facts only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise." Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). In other words, "[i]f evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the [ALJ's] conclusion must be upheld." McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146, 149 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

Under the SSA, a claimant is considered disabled when such person lacks the ability "to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). A person is eligible to receive disability benefits if the impairment suffered is of "such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot . . . engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." Id. § 423(d)(2)(A).

The ALJ evaluates a claimant's eligibility for disability insurance benefits pursuant to a five-step sequential analysis:

1. The Commissioner considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity.

2. If not, the Commissioner considers whether the claimant has a "severe impairment" which limits his or her mental or physical ability to do basic work activities.

3. If the claimant has a "severe impairment," the Commissioner must ask whether, based solely on medical evidence, claimant has an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. If the claimant has one of these enumerated impairments, the Commissioner will automatically consider him disabled, without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience.

4. If the impairment is not 'listed" in the regulations, the Commissioner then asks whether, despite the claimant's severe impairment, he or she has residual functional capacity to perform his or her past work.

5. If the claimant is unable to perform his or her past work, the Commissioner then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform.

Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2000); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v). "The claimant bears the burden of proof on the first four steps, while the [Commissioner] bears the burden on the last step." Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). At the last step, the Commissioner must prove that "that there is other gainful work in the national economy that [the claimant] could perform." Kamerling v. Massanari, 295 F.3d 206, 210 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c)(2). If the ALJ determines that "significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform," McIntyre, 758 F.3d at 151 (citation omitted), the ALJ must deny disability insurance benefits to the claimant, see 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

B. Analysis

In her decision dated August 17, 2016, the ALJ followed the five-step procedure established by the Commissioner for evaluating disability claims. (See SSA Administrative Record ("Administrative Record") at 16-17 (Dkt. No. 10)).¹ At the first step of the inquiry, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since she applied for SSI. (Administrative Record 18.) At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff "has the following severe impairments: fibromyalgia, bony hypertrophy of the acromioclavicular joint and 5-mm type-1 acromioclavicular joint separation, left shoulder arthropathy, rotator cuff bursitis/tenosynovitiswith partial tears, hypertension, depression, and mild sleep apnea." (Id. (citation omitted).) At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not "have an impairment or a combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1." (Id.)²

At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had no past relevant work. (Id. at 26 (citation omitted).) At step five, the ALJ relied upon the vocational expert's testimony that Plaintiff could perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. (Id.)³ The ALJ, therefore, concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Id. at 27.)

In the R&R, Judge McCarthy concluded that the ALJ erred by (1) failing to give the opinions of Plaintiff's treating physicians controlling weight, and (2) by discounting Plaintiff's credibility regarding her subjective statements about her pain. (R&R 21-31). Judge McCarthy further concluded that, moreover, the ALJ should re-evaluate her conclusion regarding Plaintiff's credibility. (Id. at 28-31.) The Commissioner objects to each conclusion. (See...